RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare

RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

thompsonx -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/6/2016 8:03:18 PM)
ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny [ If there's a reason for the comment besides making Hillary look better than Obama, my guess is they're laying the groundwork for another run at single payer. Remember the line from the movie The Hunt For Red October..."Russians don't take a dump without a plan, son". Well, the Clinton's are exactly the same. They're the most premeditated SOBs I've ever seen. Why do you favor action without forethought? That does seem more than a little phoquing stupid.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/6/2016 8:40:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Why do you favor action without forethought? That does seem more than a little phoquing stupid. [sm=lame.gif]

Edwird -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/6/2016 8:59:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Billions of home equity destroyed?!? That's billions of home equity that was artificially inflated in the first place (brought to you by your friends in The Fed since at least 1987 (Greenspan))! The busts (of boom/bust cycles) suck, but are necessary. It's really the booms that should be feared. No booms, no busts. It's not rocket surgery. Here's a book for you; Chain of Blame by Paul Muolo and Mathew Padilla. It might be in your local library. If you make it through that, I've got more.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 5:06:34 AM)
Our tax code is a little more complicated than that, but part of the reason why we pay so much is that our armed forces are required to protect all of you. Yes, I said it. I've gotten just a bit tired of all the smug European mud-slinging. quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 What's your income tax in the US? 30-35%?? Ours is 20% - after you've earned the first £11,000 (which is tax free).

thompsonx -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 6:12:04 AM)
ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Our tax code is a little more complicated than that, but part of the reason why we pay so much is that our armed forces are required to protect all of you. Who are we protecting them from?

Edwird -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 2:41:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri All that you can actually show is that costs have risen slower than in the US. So, the only thing that you can claim now, is that by moving to a Universal care model, US Health care costs will rise slower than if we don't. Well yes, that's the idea. So you are opposed to a single-payer system because it would 'merely' keep costs from rising as steeply as before? There's a reason people like you never get to upper management.

thishereboi -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 4:49:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri All that you can actually show is that costs have risen slower than in the US. So, the only thing that you can claim now, is that by moving to a Universal care model, US Health care costs will rise slower than if we don't. Well yes, that's the idea. So you are opposed to a single-payer system because it would 'merely' keep costs from rising as steeply as before? There's a reason people like you never get to upper management. If the idea is that the cost won't rise as fast, why did you claim it was going to drop 1/3 or less in this post? quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny If there's a reason for the comment besides making Hillary look better than Obama, my guess is they're laying the groundwork for another run at single payer. Holy crap! Can't have that! Next thing you know, US citizens would be paying 1/3 or more less for healthcare than what was paid even before Obamacare. <snip>

DesideriScuri -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 5:43:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The busts (of boom/bust cycles) suck, but are necessary. Necessary? No. Inevitable? Yes. Booms can't last forever. They are necessary to right the Market, though. Markets are inefficient, or not as efficient as they could be, when there is malinvestments, which is what the booms are. The busts are needed to get rid of the malinvestments and improve efficiency. One of the reasons this recovery has been so slow, is that the malinvestments aren't gone, and others are happening to make the difference again.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 5:48:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Why do you favor action without forethought? That does seem more than a little phoquing stupid. It seems to be your posting style. Why not?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 5:53:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC copied from freedomdwarf, Yep. Said that all along. From memory, the original ACA was very much like social healthcare. By the time the Repubs diluted it down with an additional 11,000+ pages of waffle, you ended up with something virtually unworkable and a farce. You forget what really happened. Let me refresh your memory. The Democrats rammed this through on Christmas eve without a single Republican vote in favor. The Democrats didn't allow for ANY amendments to be added. There was very little debate. The failure that you call the "Affordable Health care Act" is all the responsibility of the Democrats. Don't blame the Republicans for your sides fuck up. The only problem with your post mister RW sheeple is that the whole thing was the idea of Mitt Romney.....a Republican. The reason no Republicans voted for it it was a Dem was in office. If Romney had won the election, this would have been rammed through before he had his hand off the Bible. As for "Fuck Up".. My insurance premiums are 10% less than last year with a lower deductible. Go figure

DesideriScuri -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 6:09:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Billions of home equity destroyed?!? That's billions of home equity that was artificially inflated in the first place (brought to you by your friends in The Fed since at least 1987 (Greenspan))! The busts (of boom/bust cycles) suck, but are necessary. It's really the booms that should be feared. No booms, no busts. It's not rocket surgery. Here's a book for you; Chain of Blame by Paul Muolo and Mathew Padilla. It might be in your local library. If you make it through that, I've got more. Housing prices were artificially inflated, fueled by cheap credit. Mortgage lenders, banks, and Wall Street were complicit, but without the cheap money policies The Fed has had over decades, things wouldn't have gotten so bad. The Congressional Report on the recession tagged the SEC regulators for not catching the warning flags. That same report put the major onus of blame on The Fed for not doing it's job to prevent these situations. Wall Street took advantage of cheap credit, lax regulators, and government complicity to inflate and then burst a housing bubble. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played a role, too. Had they not bought almost any paper written, almost immediately, interest rates would have been higher on loans, and less qualified people wouldn't have been able to get a loan in the first place. But, with the ability to quickly get rid of a mortgage, lenders priced loans and qualifications according to the risk of loss to the lenders. If you have a loan on your books for only a week, what's your risk of default and loss? Damn near zero, if not zero. Write as many loans as you can, as fast as you can, shuttle the loans off to Fannie and Freddie, count your commissions and keep the ink flowing. What allowed Wall Street to take advantage of it? The Fed and other lax regulators.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 6:21:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri All that you can actually show is that costs have risen slower than in the US. So, the only thing that you can claim now, is that by moving to a Universal care model, US Health care costs will rise slower than if we don't. Well yes, that's the idea. So you are opposed to a single-payer system because it would 'merely' keep costs from rising as steeply as before? There's a reason people like you never get to upper management. I'm just clearing the air when people slop shit on here. Just because the UK's care costs are, roughly, 50% of those in the US doesn't mean the US costs will drop by moving to the same or similar system. People claim our costs will drop because other's costs are half of ours. No one has shown a reduction in costs by moving to a universal system. Let's say US costs are double UK's costs. Let's say the US adopts a Universal strategy and realizes the exact same rate of cost inflation as the UK by doing so. US costs will be double forever, won't they? So, while only being double is better than being triple, I'd much rather work on getting closer to the same. And, since you either have been here long enough, have forgotten, or have ignored it, I've state many, many times that I actually like the UK's NHS, and my main opposition to the US adopting a Universal care system is that it isn't authorized in the Constitution to do so. I've even stated that I'd be in support of an amendment authorizing the Federal Government to run a universal health care system.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 6:28:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: MasterBrentC copied from freedomdwarf, Yep. Said that all along. From memory, the original ACA was very much like social healthcare. By the time the Repubs diluted it down with an additional 11,000+ pages of waffle, you ended up with something virtually unworkable and a farce. You forget what really happened. Let me refresh your memory. The Democrats rammed this through on Christmas eve without a single Republican vote in favor. The Democrats didn't allow for ANY amendments to be added. There was very little debate. The failure that you call the "Affordable Health care Act" is all the responsibility of the Democrats. Don't blame the Republicans for your sides fuck up. The only problem with your post mister RW sheeple is that the whole thing was the idea of Mitt Romney.....a Republican. The reason no Republicans voted for it it was a Dem was in office. If Romney had won the election, this would have been rammed through before he had his hand off the Bible. As for "Fuck Up".. My insurance premiums are 10% less than last year with a lower deductible. Go figure My premiums keep going up, but I expect that, as inflation makes damn near everything go up. Do you see any difference, Constitutionally, between the authorities of a State government and the authorities of the Federal government?

Edwird -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 6:34:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri All that you can actually show is that costs have risen slower than in the US. So, the only thing that you can claim now, is that by moving to a Universal care model, US Health care costs will rise slower than if we don't. Well yes, that's the idea. So you are opposed to a single-payer system because it would 'merely' keep costs from rising as steeply as before? There's a reason people like you never get to upper management. If the idea is that the cost won't rise as fast, why did you claim it was going to drop 1/3 or less in this post? quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny If there's a reason for the comment besides making Hillary look better than Obama, my guess is they're laying the groundwork for another run at single payer. Holy crap! Can't have that! Next thing you know, US citizens would be paying 1/3 or more less for healthcare than what was paid even before Obamacare. I didn't say it would drop 1/3 overnight. I was pointing out the fact that US healthcare costs 50% more than anywhere else (fact), so that if the US were to get on a single-payer system, we could get a lot closer to the next expensive country in terms of cost. Which would mean ~ 33% lower cost sometime in the near future than what we'd otherwise be paying under the current system.

Edwird -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 6:54:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Here's a book for you; Chain of Blame by Paul Muolo and Mathew Padilla. It might be in your local library. If you make it through that, I've got more. Housing prices were artificially inflated, fueled by cheap credit. Mortgage lenders, banks, and Wall Street were complicit, but without the cheap money policies The Fed has had over decades, things wouldn't have gotten so bad. Etc. blah blah blah ... So I take it you haven't read the book yet. Of course not. quote: What allowed Wall Street to take advantage of it? The Fed and other lax regulators. Right. So what does it say in your signature? "Limited Government." Well, there we are.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 10:30:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The busts (of boom/bust cycles) suck, but are necessary. Necessary? No. Inevitable? Yes. Booms can't last forever. They are necessary to right the Market, though. Markets are inefficient, or not as efficient as they could be, when there is malinvestments, which is what the booms are. The busts are needed to get rid of the malinvestments and improve efficiency. One of the reasons this recovery has been so slow, is that the malinvestments aren't gone, and others are happening to make the difference again. Not really disagreeing with you, DS. It was just an off-hand comment on basically what you're describing here with regard to bad investing. In my view, having so many investors focused on short-term gains is making the market more volatile than is healthy. Booms and busts shouldn't be necessary but with how people invest nowadays, they are inevitable.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 11:13:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Here's a book for you; Chain of Blame by Paul Muolo and Mathew Padilla. It might be in your local library. If you make it through that, I've got more. Housing prices were artificially inflated, fueled by cheap credit. Mortgage lenders, banks, and Wall Street were complicit, but without the cheap money policies The Fed has had over decades, things wouldn't have gotten so bad. Etc. blah blah blah ... So I take it you haven't read the book yet. Of course not. Did you read the Congressional Report? Didn't think so. quote: quote: What allowed Wall Street to take advantage of it? The Fed and other lax regulators. Right. So what does it say in your signature? "Limited Government." Well, there we are. Yes, there we are. You have no clue about context. Congrats.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/7/2016 11:25:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny Not really disagreeing with you, DS. It was just an off-hand comment on basically what you're describing here with regard to bad investing. In my view, having so many investors focused on short-term gains is making the market more volatile than is healthy. Booms and busts shouldn't be necessary but with how people invest nowadays, they are inevitable. Booms and busts aren't necessary. At all. But, if you have a boom, you're going to need a bust. The Market is all about investors doing what they want with their money. The Market has no problem fixing that stuff. You want to risk it all on the Tug Toner, be my guest. But, if you lose all your money doing so, that's not my fault, and not the Government's responsibility to bail you out. And there is where things really take a turn for the worse. Not only was Wall Street trading shit paper, when their value finally came out, government stepped in and made sure Wall Street would be okay. I've said it many times before, as important a signal as profits are to the Market, losses are just as important a signal.

Edwird -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/8/2016 12:12:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Here's a book for you; Chain of Blame by Paul Muolo and Mathew Padilla. It might be in your local library. If you make it through that, I've got more. Housing prices were artificially inflated, fueled by cheap credit. Mortgage lenders, banks, and Wall Street were complicit, but without the cheap money policies The Fed has had over decades, things wouldn't have gotten so bad. Etc. blah blah blah ... So I take it you haven't read the book yet. Of course not. Did you read the Congressional Report? Didn't think so. I certainly did. What a load of tripe. Unlike you, I also read better informed and more reliable reports. And books. That is, from experts who know what they are talking about, in the financial and real estate industries, not paid by bank lobbyists and ALEC. quote: quote: What allowed Wall Street to take advantage of it? The Fed and other lax regulators. Right. So what does it say in your signature? "Limited Government." Well, there we are. quote: Yes, there we are. You have no clue about context. Congrats. Some idiotic simplistic and overreaching proclamation about "limited government" as one of your apparently core values doesn't exactly convey 'context' in that proclamation, does it?

Edwird -> RE: Bill Clinton criticising Obamacare (10/8/2016 12:45:19 AM)
Holy shit, people! (I hate using words like that, but sometimes ... ) Put down the newspaper and Go To The Effing Library every once in awhile!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875